Blomme Siska, De Maertelaere Emilie, Verhoye Eline
Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals, Herestraat, 49 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals, St. Pietersnieuwstraat 33, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
BMC Res Notes. 2020 Mar 4;13(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13104-020-04974-x.
Commercial kits of column tests for pre-transfusion testing have progressively replaced conventional tube tests in most laboratories. Aim of this study was to compare three commercial test cell panels for the identification of irregular red blood cell (RBC) alloantibodies. Overall, 44 samples with a positive indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) by routine testing were used for comparison of following panels: Ortho RESOLVE panelC (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics (OCD), Milan, Italy), ID-DiaPanel(-P) (Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) and Identisera Diana(P) (Grifols, Barcelona, Spain). Column agglutination techniques were used, with microtubes containing either microgel (Bio-Rad/Grifols) or glass bead microparticles (Ortho).
Alloantibody identification was possible in 38 samples, of which identical identification was shown in 33 samples by all methods. The remaining samples showed differences between certain methods, with the gel card system being superior to the glass card system for analyzing stored samples Considering that not all samples were evaluated in all three methods, the concordance rate reached 100% between Bio-Rad and Grifols, 90.5% between Bio-Rad and OCD, 86.5% between OCD and Grifols and 90.5% between all methods. Although differences in sensitivities were seen for specific antibodies, the three methods showed comparable performance for the identification of RBC alloantibodies.
在大多数实验室中，用于输血前检测的柱式检测商业试剂盒已逐渐取代了传统的试管检测。本研究的目的是比较三种商业检测细胞板，用于鉴定不规则红细胞（RBC）同种抗体。总体而言，44份经常规检测间接抗球蛋白试验（IAT）呈阳性的样本用于比较以下检测板：奥森多RESOLVE检测板C（奥森多临床诊断公司（OCD），意大利米兰）、ID-DiaPanel(-P)（伯乐生命医学产品公司，美国加利福尼亚州）和Identisera Diana(P)（格里菲斯公司，西班牙巴塞罗那）。采用柱凝集技术，微管中含有微凝胶（伯乐/格里菲斯）或玻璃珠微粒（奥森多）。
38份样本中可以鉴定出同种抗体，其中所有方法在33份样本中显示出相同的鉴定结果。其余样本在某些方法之间存在差异，对于分析储存样本，凝胶卡系统优于玻璃卡系统。考虑到并非所有样本都用三种方法进行评估，伯乐和格里菲斯之间的一致率达到100%，伯乐和奥森多之间为90.5%，奥森多和格里菲斯之间为86.5%，所有方法之间为90.5%。尽管特定抗体的敏感性存在差异，但三种方法在鉴定RBC同种抗体方面表现相当。
